Cited by 216Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and AgencyNeural dynamics and brain function

Error awareness and the error-related negativity: evaluating the first decade of evidence

Open access
Wessel, Jan R.·2012·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

From its discovery in the early 1990s until this day, the error-related negativity (ERN) remains the most widely investigated electrophysiological index of cortical error processing. When researchers began addressing the electrophysiology of subjective error awareness more than a decade ago, the role of the ERN, alongside the subsequently occurring error positivity (Pe), was an obvious locus of attention. However, the first two studies explicitly addressing the role of error-related event-related brain potentials (ERPs) would already set the tone for what still remains a controversy today: in contrast to the clear-cut findings that link the amplitude of the Pe to error awareness, the association between ERN amplitude and error awareness is vastly unclear. An initial study reported significant differences in ERN amplitude with respect to subjective error awareness, whereas the second failed to report this result, leading to a myriad of follow-up studies that seemed to back up or contradict either view. Here, I review those studies that explicitly dealt with the role of the error-related ERPs in subjective error awareness, and try to explain the differences in reported effects of error awareness on ERN amplitude. From the point of view presented here, different findings between studies can be explained by disparities in experimental design and data analysis, specifically with respect to the quantification of subjective error awareness. Based on the review of these results, I will then try to embed the error-related negativity into a widely known model of the implementation of access consciousness in the brain, the global neuronal workspace (GNW) model, and speculate as the ERN's potential role in such a framework. At last, I will outline future challenges in the investigation of the cortical electrophysiology of error awareness, and offer some suggestions on how they could potentially be addressed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00088

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ERN abnormalities are often interpreted as reflecting early, relatively automatic performance-monitoring processes, whereas Pe is more dependent on awareness, attention, task instructions, motivational context, confidence, and developmental stage.

    “ERN abnormalities are often interpreted as reflecting early, relatively automatic performance-monitoring processes, whereas Pe is more dependent on awareness, attention, task instructions, motivational context, confidence, and developmental stage [116,187,200].”

    From Electrophysiological Correlates of Cognitive Dysfunction in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): A Systematic and Mechanistic Review of EEG, ERP, and QEEG Evidence (2026) · cites this paper as [200]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Error-awareness research has emphasised the role of the anterior insula and related salience-network activity in conscious error perception, autonomic orienting, and the recruitment of adaptive control after mistakes.

    “Error-awareness research has emphasised the role of the anterior insula and related salience-network activity in conscious error perception, autonomic orienting, and the recruitment of adaptive control after mistakes [200,207].”

    From Electrophysiological Correlates of Cognitive Dysfunction in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD): A Systematic and Mechanistic Review of EEG, ERP, and QEEG Evidence (2026) · cites this paper as [200]

    In “The network of processors: coding of multiple sources of error-evidence” (page not provided), the review reports that insular activity and autonomic nervous system activity differ with subjective error awareness, while stressing that their causal relationship is unclear. “Indirect benchmarks: the functional role of consciousness in error processing” (page not provided) discusses possible links between error awareness and adaptive behavior, but does not establish that anterior-insula or salience-network activity recruits adaptive control after mistakes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies using anti-saccade and error-signalling paradigms have shown that Pe amplitude is typically larger for errors that participants consciously detect than for errors that remain unnoticed, whereas the relationship between ERN and awareness is less consistent.

    “Studies using anti-saccade and error-signalling paradigms have shown that Pe amplitude is typically larger for errors that participants consciously detect than for errors that remain unnoticed, whereas the relationship between ERN and awareness is less consistent [189,199,200].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wessel, J. R.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Wessel, Jan R.
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2012
Volume
6
Pages
88-88
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003004992
Cited by
215
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
error-related negativity, error awareness, error positivity, error processing, access consciousness, event-related potentials, ERP amplitude

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review